May 7, 2009

How can he rake in votes just by seeming to care about the rights and interests of gay people? Not even seeming all that much — he's against same-sex marriage! — but just by stirring hopeful feelings and looking like somebody who cares. Well, he's already done it once. Why shouldn't he believe that what worked once will work again?

166 comments:

You be the judge: (1) California, Prop 8 (2) the Miss USA debacle (3) every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted it down (4) the gay vendetta resulting from Prop 8 in California (5) see ZombieTime's blog entry on the gay festival in San Francisco

Nothing will bring America closer to putting an end to the gay agenda juggernaut than Barack Obama taking this on.

First Paul spooks about the "gay agenda juggernaut"....nice turn of phrase Paul but unless it is in your living room with placards, no one else sees it...but then again you see a lot of things no one else can see.

And then we come to Dark Eden said... "If you're a Democrat, its enough to want to help people in your heart, even if your policies lead to the deaths of millions."

So somehow DE stirred gays into what I am assuming is his anti-abortion stew. It's a leat there DE...but I'm sure you have your reasons...not many, not well thought out, fairly silly, goofy even...but they are yours.

There you have it...anything doing with Obama and gays and 1/2 the responses are nonsensical. Gotta love this blog.

I remember during the Vice Presidential debates when Biden gleefully announced his and Obama's rejection of same-sex marriage. It would have been amazing if Palin had been able to do something more than meekly agree.

Forget about the whole marriage issue. I never hear Republicans talking about allowing gays to die for their country or allowing gays to adopt children other people abandoned. I also never hear them voicing support for coming out and being able to live openly as a homosexual, or trying to stop violence against homosexuals, or supporting gay families.

Instead of any of this, Republicans just stand there and meekly agree with whatever the Democrat said, so what does Obama have to worry about?

Rhetorically, Bush used his bully pulpit to instill fear of gay families. Obama speaks out in favor of equal rights for gays.

In symbolic measures, Bush used his position to do things like refuse to allow gay families to participate in the Easter Egg Roll. Obama included gay families among the participants.

I won't give Obama a pass on following through on his promises, but it is absurd to suggest that Obama is not really committed to supporting gay rights because he has said he opposes same sex marriage.

How many people, hdhouse, would you guess have died early because of poverty since 1965?

From 1947 to 1965, poverty (as defined by the current constant-dollar income level) declined 0.89 percentage points a year on average; the correlation between the year and the poverty rate had an r value of -0.98, and poverty was on a path to extinction in 1984. Then the Democrats pushed through the War on Poverty . . . and the average annual decline in poverty dropped to 0.00 percentage points a year, 1966-2006.

Yet despite these demonstrably counterproductive policies, which almost certainly have led to many earlier-than-otherwise deaths, Democrats get credit for caring about the poor.

I would assume his stance is more political than personal. That being said, I like Maine’s governor, Baldacci, responded in his statement – acknowledging his confliction and eventual turn from civil unions to marriage – bowing to the Maine Constitution and the separation of church and state.

Being that it’s a state’s issue, I’m not sure what Obama’s supposed to do. Sure there’s political alienation of some sub-groups from campaign statements, but hey, the question of fairness and equal protection seems to be backing up the change.

DBQ--All those positions are well documented. If you follow politics, you should recognize them as his positions. I don't have time to find links for all of them. Feel free to assume I'm "talking out of my ass" but those are his well-known positions, whether you agree with him or not.

"The difference is that Bush chose not to address the fact that gay families showed up and Obama affimatively invited them."

Or, one could say the difference is that Bush didn't see any reason to treat one group of "families" differently than any other, but invited everyone to the egg roll, while Obama basked in the moral sheen of "affirmatively inviting" the gay familes.

Which, as we can see, he didn't even need to do, since they showed up even despite that awful swaggering homophobe chimp in the White House. But feel free to scrabble for any crumbs of affirmation your Messiah deigns to drop to the floor.

The difference is that Bush chose not to address the fact that gay families showed up and Obama affirmatively invited them.

True, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes. Bush basically treated them like any other family. Time was, that was all they wanted.

One could also point out that Bush ignored opposition from his own side for doing it (rightly so, in my view). Obama's making a big deal out of his "inviting" them seems like pretty cheap grace in comparison.

If the Democrats would please publish the list of Approved Victim Classes so that in the future all open invitations have a special subheading for the special people that deserve special invitations made especially for them, I would be much obliged.

But he is the Commander and Chief and he can issue orders and directives and the Armed forces will salute and say "Yes sir."

But he won't do that because it is more important that he care deeply about then he do anything about it.

It is pretty much the same as abortion for supposedly pro-life Republicans. They will swear up and down that they cared deeply about it but they won't do diddley because it is more important that the cut up the swag then that they stand up for their supposed principles.

Pogo--Yes, it undermines my credibility that I misremembered one issue. I apologized as soon as I saw that was a mistake. But I don't think the other claims I made are really contentious, except the question of whose rhetoric is more sympathetic to gay rights, which I suppose you can debate (and offer citations) endlessly.

The other issue some might take exception to is Bush's support for criminalization of same sex sodomy. In 1994, he said he would veto any legislative action to repeal the Texas statute making sodomy a criminal offense. You can argue that he wouldn't believe that today, but he took a pretty aggressive position on the issue in 1994 and never recanted as far as I can find.

DADT is federal law. Of course it was passed by a congress controlled by Democrats and signed by that noted homophobe Bill Clinton. Other than that, Democrats have been very supportive of soldiers who are gay.

Obama cannot end DADT. At least not without Congress presenting a repeal bill to him.

And it would be absurd for Congress to debate DADT at this point in time, when the economy is front and center, because the Republicans are certain to filibuster it, and to accuse Obama of caring more about gays than the unemployed.

I'm gay, and I have absolutely no issue with DADT repeal being repealed one or two years down the road, having the military do a 6-month study first, then a congressional hearing, etc. This issue almost wrecked Clinton's Presidency, and there are political realities you are dealing with. Obama is politically savvy - deal with it.

But if it's not addressed by 2012, I could not support the Democrats.

I'd bet a lot of money that Obama will get DADT repealed before 2012.

I'd bet a lot of money that Obama WON'T get DOMA repealed.

But gay groups should definitely put pressure on Obama to deal with these items.

I think this whole thing is funny actually. Keep making excuses for your man. He can help you get what you want. He can make it happen. He controls both houses of Congress and has a veto proof and filibuster proof majority of Democrats and Rhinos who would be happy to sign on. But somehow, the time isn't right for him to take a stand for your rights. If he really believed in them he would do something.

But I am sure you have an excuse. As far as I have seen so far your answer is that it is all Bush's fault. That certainly makes sense.

He's been President for all of about 110 days, announced the closing would take place...and it will.

Contrary to the planning process deemed realistic by many here, closing such a facility isn't something that can be done in such a short period of time. (And of course, you already know that, but just love to bitch and whine.)

It will take time because, again, contrary to what we've seen in the past from the previous administration, Obama and his administration will actually think about various aspects of the implementation.

He'll even discuss it with the proper parities to make sure the job is done right.

The fun just continues. It's the calendars fault. It’s the fault of a radio personality. Look over there that’s the reason he can’t do anything. There just never seems to be enough time to do the right thing.

Trooper York has never spoken to a gay person about gay rights either.

Bush spent his entire Presidency demeaning gay people, trying (successfully) to make them second class citizens in this country. And he had such disrespect for gay people that he couldn't even mention the word "gay" in 8 years, despite the fact that he was taking away our rights.

Obama has used the word "gay" in almost all of his major speeches. He treats gay people with respect, and he is comfortable around them.

And yes, small things (such as acknowledging that gay people exist) do count, and most gay people are willing to give Obama some time to deal with gay rights.

This is getting to be a habit with Obama. Reap the publicity benefits of declaring to do something, then not bother with the follow-up. Just like with telecom immunity, "no lobbyists", 5-day public postings on legislation, Bagram, etc.

Hey downtownlad you don't know me so don't presume to make judgments. I don't have to quote gay people and make up any claims about what they think. That’s Luckyoldson’s game. I am sure that gay’s are over the lot on this. Some are outraged that nothing has really changed in any meaningful way and some want to give him more time and make excuses like you. The facts are the facts and all your plea bargaining and excuse making won’t change them. He has the power to make the changes you want happen. To start the ball rolling. To lay the groundwork. You just won't admit that your guy is just shining you on. He is going to do as little as possible as late as possible. If he does anything at all. Except vote present. I thought you moved to Thailand not Dreamworld.

I am on your side in this downtownlad but you refuse to believe that. I think DADT is foolish. There are gay people in the military and they are brave soldiers and don't deserve to be treated the way Clinton set it up.I know one of them in the Fighting 69th who recently retired. She didn't deserve anything but honor because of her service. She is a great American and I am proud to know her and call her a friend. Now is the time to change it but you want to throw up a smoke screen and designate who can support you and who cannot. Good luck with that pal.

Bush even promised to veto hospital visitation rights for gay couples. Bush also promised to do everything in his power to imprison gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.In reality, President Bush was criticized for leaving open the possiblity of civil unions, which would allow hospital visitation rights for gay couples, sharing of health benefits, and allowance for having sex in their own homes.

And I thought you had said you moved to Thailand. If you didn't then I appolgize. I must have misremembered that and did not mean any implication in any way. I appolgize if anyone took it that way. That was not my intent.

fc. Krupke said..."This is getting to be a habit with Obama. Reap the publicity benefits of declaring to do something, then not bother with the follow-up."

110 DAYS IN.

And are you also including the Bush promises of not being a "nation builder" or that he would be a "compassionate conservative?"

Show me a business model based on making all of the changes over a period of 110 days...while dealing with a group of people as expansive as Congress and 100's of million American citizens who have a wide variety of views and can provide input and even VOTE on each and every measure suggested.

Obama will be President for four years. I'll have the chance to judge him when his term is up. Not after 100+ days. So far Obama seems quite competent, but who knows. Time will tell.

I gave George W. Bush a fair chance, and supported him fir the first three years, until it was obvious that he was incompetent.

Man - it must be tough being a wingnut ideologue. 50 days ago they were saying that Obama is a failure because the market was down 20% on his watch. Now suddenly the stock market is booming, and now they have to pretend the stock market doesn't exist.

That's what happens when you're grasping at straws.

Geez - let the guy try and govern for a few years, and we can judge whether he succeeded or failed then.

"'I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,' Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions."

By the way, does Bush get partial credit for being "comfortable" with transsexuals? I mean, they're part of the coalition, right?

And downtownlad, you will have to go a long way to find anyone who is more homophobic and bigoted than Luckyoldson/Michael/Jeremy. I don't recall you calling him out on his repeated slurs. I guess they don't count. Good luck to you.You find your allies where you want them I guess.

Apology accepted Trooper. I did not move to Thailand. But people like to throw that out there, as a slur that gays are Pedophiles.

And I apologize to you if I misjudged you.

But read my last post - it is insane to judge a President this early.

I am NOT a person who fawns over Obama and thinks he is perfect. I think he's smart though, and he listens to a lot of intelligent people before making decisions. Decisions, which so far, seem to be competent ones.

I see him as a technocrat. And yes, a politician - they all are. And me thinks America needs a technocrat right now.

Not to say that Obama won't be a disaster, or that he won't throw gays to the side (wouldn't surprise me).

But I'll judge him when his first term is done. The legislative process is notoriously slow - I get that.

No - I don't give Bush any credit for that. His statement was completely misinterpreted. So Bush said that if a state chooses to have civil union for gay couples, then that law should be followed?

So freaking what. Bush still OPPOSED those state laws allowing civil unions.

Guess what - I also think that if states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, that those laws should be followed - and that gays should not be allowed to be married in those states. But guess what - that doesn't mean I support those laws!

Appolgy accepted downtownlad. I hope that the brave soldiers who serve our country will soon be able to serve openly. I would expect them to conform the regulations regarding public displays of affection and personal sexual relationships in exactly the same way as the rules govern heterosexual relationships, no more or no less.

The telecom immunity thing is from Obama's Senate career before he was President.

The 5-day posting for review was supposed to be for any major piece of legislation, but for the stimulus plan (inarguably the most major piece of legislation of the Obama administration) it was NOT done.

And the point is, that was something Obama HIMSELF said he was going to do. Same with the much-ballyhooed lobbyist "ban". Tell me, how many days does he have to be in office before we can hold him to his own stated policies? Let me know cause I want to mark my calendar. :)

Maybe he shouldn't promise major changes to national security policy like he has for Guantanamo if he has no idea how said changes would be implemented, or even if they are a good idea.

As for Bush's "nation building", there was an event in late 2001 that put the kibosh on that.

Let me just say this: If Obama doesn't repeal DADT AND DOMA by the end of 2010, I will not vote for him in 2012. That's a promise.

Yes, I'm giving him some time, and this is because there are much more important things for him to be dealing with right now. Throughout the campaign he hinted at repealing these hateful, homophobic things, and I fully expect him to do so. If not, he's toast.

And please, for all of you saying that Obama doesn't support gay marriage, get a grip. He does in fact support it, and he already said he did (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/chicago-paper-r.html).

Of course you're trying to dominate the thread. That's why you post at a higher rate than other commentors, ass breath.

Nominally, Michael Steele heads the Republican Party. The fact that he appears to be a weak and ineffective leader does not cede to you or the other lefty douchebags the authority to make your own appointment.

I don't know where Joseph Hovsep up there is getting his information on Bush's position on gays unless it's from the voices inside his own head, but the sense I got from listening to Bush speak directly on the subject when asked in interviews was near total indifference to their uniqueness and his worst crime against them an utter refusal to recognize their *snap* fabulousness.

If Obama doesn't aggressively push for the repeal of DODT, shame on him.

If DODT's not gone by 2012, and ANY gay votes for a democrat, shame on them.

The time for letting yourselves be played by the democrats is over. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying vote republican--I don't know if I'll ever do that again. But for godsakes, don't give the democrats your vote unless they give you some major payback while they're in power.

My prediction is that DADT is going to fall, at least in its current form. If it continues to exist, it will be only for situations where males and females are not put together for similar reasons - possibly some combat type units. Places where there is a high level of forced intimacy.

I think that there is evidence that for most military type jobs, homosexuality is irrelevant, and, indeed, sex is much more relevant.

I think that if 75% or so of military jobs were opened up to openly Gay people, both sides would ultimately be mollified. Open Gays could rise up through the ranks, while the young homophobes in the actual trenches won't take their homophobia out on their openly Gay brethren.

Well Jason it is important that America keep up it's bitch slapping, hair pulling and scratching eyes out capabilities to be sure we don't fall behind our adversaries.Mr. President, we must not allow a fabulousness gap!

Ann, your gay commenters are mucking up your comments section. Almost always a fun place to go, until they get all riled up, and can only post comments about one side of one issue. Some of them are quite intelligent (others, not so much)when their comments are on something on something other than "you and your ilk want to kill all the gays", but they get awfully tiresome when they get on that track.

Lieutenant Sandy Tsao. Sandy is a Chinese American woman and army officer based out of St. Louis, Missouri.

Sandy also sent a heartfelt letter to President Obama urging him to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

An excerpt from her original letter in January reads:

Today is Chinese New Year day. I hope it will bring good fortune to you and your newly elected office. Today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am. One of the seven army values is integrity. It means choosing to do the right thing no matter what the consequences may be. As a Christian, this also means living an honest life.

In closing, she wrote:

We have the best military in the world and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream to serve our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am at today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

Obama sent her this hand-written response:

Sandy - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.

It's all so utterly silly. Assorted queers were on very solid ground when they stuck to a libertarian argument. After all it's nobody's business what my SO and I do at home, or shouldn't be, which I why I opposed all manner of anti-'sodomy' laws.

The moment, however, that people comprising one or two percent of the population -- look at participation rates in corporate same-sex partner benefits -- begin demanding not only special treatment, but affirmation, they've not only lost me ... they've gained an active opponent.

Kids at school do not need "Heather has two Mommies," and ten-year-olds do not need to be encouraged to consider their sexuality.

Homosexuality is an aberration out on the 3-sigma-plus part of the tail. Therefor to call it "normal" reveals a childish intellect, as does calling it "evil." It simply is. Shut up and deal with it.

I recently sent a heartfelt letter to President Obama urging him to repeal his destructive TARP and auto bailout policies.

Dear Mr. President,We have the best market in the world and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream not to serve fries in our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am at today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against socialism so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

Obama sent me this hand-written response:Pogo - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.

You just post the same right wing "we hate Obama" or "Obama isn't doing what we want" or "Obama isn't doing things fast enough" bullshit almost everybody else posts.

We've had eight years of the most inept and corrupt administration in our nation's history and all you hear here is whining and bitching because Obama hasn't accomplished everything he said he would in his first 110 days.

Show me a company that inherited the kinds of problems and massive debt Obama has...who turned things around in the first 110 days.

*Oh, and the stock market was up more in April than any time over the past nine years. And I bet you haven't invested a dime.

Jeremey -- several, as a point of fact. To say nothing of numerous universities offering courses (or majors) in Queer Theory ... which proclaims, BTW, that all "gender" is a socially-constructed choice.Homophobe? No, I'm not afraid of same-sex types -- that is what a "phobia" is, after all -- I simply believe on the basis of ample statistical evidence in humans and other species that it is a highly aberrant behavior, and most decidedly not something to be promoted as "normal."

I also believe we shouldn't be promoting hetero-sexual activity to ten-year-olds, even if it is "normal."

As we used to say in New England, "if the cat has kittens in the oven, that don't make 'em biscuits."

Calling an aberration "normal," no matter how fervently or frequently, does not make it so.

What are the odds of The DADT being gone before Git-mo is "Closed"? The Crisis on hand now is not going to be wasted on a single political issue that does not flush out and put a few hundred billion more into the ObamaMob's coffers. That's the Chicago way. Ask Blago who taught him and the ObamaMob how money must flow, or there no governmental actions possible. About September 2012, the DADT and Gitmo closure will most nobly reappear in Obama's caring heart.

Obama cannot end DADT. At least not without Congress presenting a repeal bill to him.

And it would be absurd for Congress to debate DADT at this point in time, when the economy is front and center, because the Republicans are certain to filibuster it, and to accuse Obama of caring more about gays than the unemployed.

This is so pathetic it's hard to read without wincing. Just how long would it take? He pushed through a budget nobody even read in just a couple days. It really doesn't matter if the Republicans filibuster it or not - you need 41 Senators to filibuster a bill.

You know, I know, ever-damn-body knows Obama isn't going to change DADT because it's a political loser for the Democrats. You've been had, again (remember Clinton?), and you can't even admit it to yourself. Oh, but don't worry, next time, for sure, the Democrats will deliver on this promise instead of just using you for your cash and willingness to man the phone banks. Really.

Repealing DADT is doable, but it would be tricky and involve no small degree of political risk for O, which is why he probably won't do anything.

The key is to win the support of the military brass before approaching congress. If O could get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 4 service chiefs on board, that would give the Dem senators the cover they need to vote for repeal.

To win over the brass, Obama would need to offer them something. The brass is not anti-gay per se, but they view this issue as a distraction from what they really like to do - buy ginormously expensive weapons from the contractors they'll work for after retirement. So, O had better bring a big checkbook and do some horse-trading the Chicago way if he wants to get it done.

That assumes there are no anti-gay Democrats, and of course there are.And it assumes Collins and Snowe and a few of the others would vote with the rest of the party, which of course they wouldn't. I think you're right, the Republicans won't even try. But I don't think they could sustain a filibuster even if they did try.

Well, things have changed.Seems the "gay agenda" is working on all the poor, poor, malleable straights. Deal with it."

Meaningless and irrelevant. It's the voting public that has the final say so, outside of sidestepping courts that mysteriously find homosexual marriage in their constitutions or legislatures bringing up bills to pass homosexual marriages outside of the representation of their constituencies. Voting is where the rubber meets the rode ZPS, not your strawman of an argument on a poll.

No, he shouldn't. His voters that carried him into office proved he shouldn't. Even in uber liberal California, the same voters who overwhelmingly voted for The Big O also voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Message received, loud and clear.